My first question, Nina, is "Did you read
Amendment E before making your
report?" If not, shame on you! If
you did, DOUBLE SHAME on you for defrauding the
American people, and particularly the South Dakota voters by deliberately misrepresenting what the Amendment
stands for!

Not once did you report or explain the seven
violations Amendment E will examine-- yes Nina, only seven, and they are
specified in ¶2.

"2.Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge
of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or
conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of
material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful
conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South
Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other
contrary statute." [color emphasis added]

Again, they are:

(1) deliberate violation of
law

(2) fraud or conspiracy

(3) intentional violation of due process
of law

(4) deliberate disregard of material
facts

(5) judicial acts without
jurisdiction

(6) blocking of a lawful conclusion of a
case

(7) any deliberate violation of the
Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States.

Nina, which ones of those violations do you feel
judges should be able to commit with impunity? with "judicial protections"
as your article is titled? You said nothing
about them!

Instead, you repeated the constant mantra of the
South Dakota Establishment, which includes the news reporting media,
that:

* judges will be able to be sued for their
judicial decisions

* prisoners will be able to sue judges upon
their release from prison

* people will be able to sue any existing
administrative agency in S.D.

* the purpose of the Amendment is to cause
judicial intimidation

That's just four that I can name on top of my
head-- there are others which I encourage people to listen to at the above shown
website.

Ms. Totenberg, just on the face of
it,your allegations about Amendment E are senseless.

"Judicial accountability" means exactly
that! And to whom, and for what, should judges be accountable? Yes, in the
first instance, judges should be held accountable to
whatever forum the system offers. The opposition argues that the following
five "remedies" are available:

If a judge breaks the law he or she can be prosecuted.

People have the right to challenge a decision made by
a judge. Its called the appeals process, and every day scores of South
Dakotans use it for the lawful, proven redress of their grievances in a higher
court.

South Dakotans have the Right of Recusal  a very rare
citizen power among the United States  in which a party to a lawsuit or a
prosecution may remove the judge assigned simply because they doubt as to
whether the assigned judge will treat them fairly.

Judges are routinely disciplined and even removed from
the bench for misconduct. The body that holds them accountable is called the
Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Judges are voted off the bench all the time. This
November alone, 38 judges are up for reelection, with 55 candidates vying for
their seats.

Amendment E encourages any or all of those
"remedies," and passage of Amendment E would assure that they work. But
that's just in the first instance! If they work,
great! But if they don't, then judges must be held accountable ultimately to
the People. Government generally will not
discipline itself, nor can it be expected to. It obviously has a conflict of
interest, especially in light of the fact that more often than not, judges cover
up for government wrongdoing and for themselves. They're all in the same boat,
nice and safe. The People are left flailing in the water, screaming for help--
and more often than not, they are ignored! Redress of grievances has been
non-existent in practice, for years. J.A.I.L. will change that!

Ms. Totenberg, by pure nature, the solution to
government corruption, and more particularly judicial corruption, rests with
the People in the final analysis. The Declaration of
Independence states this fact very clearly. I refer you to a very recent
J.A.I.L. News Journal titled "Absolute Despotism." I've emailed it to you
under separate cover. Our readers have already received it. Become informed and
aware of American history and the relationship between the People and
government; then compare that with what we have today. Another J.A.I.L.
News Journal is titled "Inherent Truth of Amendment E" which you can go to
by clicking it in the left-hand column on www.sd-jail4judges.org.

Also, further down in that left-hand column is
the Justice Sandra Day O'Connor article in the Wall Street Journal (the first
selection, after clicking the article), in which we include her article and
thoroughly respond to her attacks on Amendment E, including the "judicial
intimidation" accusation.Please read
that for a full understanding.

Answering the many common and repeated
criticisms of Amendment E by the opposition is found on the "Confronting Head
On" item in the left-hand menu. We need not repeat our responses here. But,
learn the truth about Amendment E before making any more irresponsible comments
about it.

We also note that you reported the South Dakota
Bar Association took some kind of a recent poll on Amendment E and found that
the "No" vote was "slightly ahead." However, they failed to state
what polling company conducted the poll,
when it was conducted, and what the exact
percentages were! To make such a claim, and include
it in your report, without details and evidence speaks VOLUMES! Just
about a month ago, the Zogby Polling Company polled South Dakota voters and came
up with 67% in favor of Amendment E, 19.8% against it, and 13.2% Undecided. Mr.
Branson informed you of this poll in your telephonic interview of him last week.
Even if the entire "Undecided" vote went against the Amendment, that would still
be only one-third against it.

The People of South Dakota, and indeed
throughout the nation, deserve honest reporting, and direct references to
the Amendment itself-- not just baseless claims. Take a look at our South Dakota
website-- BECOME INFORMED of the truth!

# #
#

"Who stands to be
hurt if Amendment E is not passed?"

Would it be the South
Dakota Bar Association and lawyers? NO!Would it be the
South Dakota Legislature? NO!